Britons are in trouble

[TokyoMorose]

It's more of a goals/wish list than a true white paper.

 

Few concrete moves identified, lots of weasel wording. A lot better than no actual plan, but still lots of wiggle room.

 

Case in point, the future of Boxer. It's going to be increasingly relied on, for example replacing Warrior, but nothing on numbers or variants.

 

[BaronTibere]

Sorry it was referred to as a white paper elsewhere but yeah its only slightly less vague than the defense review itself. At least the name Challenger 3 is finally confirmed by the government.

[Ramlaen]

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/04/06/british-army-wants-more-punch-in-its-boxer-vehicle-fleet/

 

Use those new Warrior turrets you paid for.

[Lord_James]

Quote

The British MoD has no plan to do so, but it might even be possible, albeit politically risky, to fit the CTAI cannon to a Boxer.

Politically risky... how? Was it “politically risky” to fit than cannon on the (now defunct) warrior upgrade? 

[SH_MM]

It is risky to fit the turret that failed to perform (reliably) on Warrior to the Boxer.

[Ramlaen]

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

It is risky to fit the turret that failed to perform (reliably) on Warrior to the Boxer.

 

I don't recall the WCSP turret having reliability issues.

[David Moyes]

By all accounts the turret did work in the end and the battlefield trials for WCSP were going well.
However with all the delays and cost overruns it simply became untenable to continue.

I would say "politically risky" would refer to the optics of giving LMUK more money to continue a "failed" programme on another platform.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------





 

Spoiler

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Scottish Conservative leader standing on a Hawkei at Thales in Glasgow.

Recently GDUK has been promoting Foxhound on twitter sparking speculation that L-ATV will be rejected for MRV-P Group 1.
Hawkei turning up at the proposed manufacturing site for Bushmaster (competing against Eagle V 6x6 for MRV-P Group 2) and allowed to be used for a photo-op adds to that further.

Link if you want to see more photos of a politician climbing on a no-step bonnet:
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/photos/thales?events=775640429&family=editorial&phrase=thales&sort=best

 

[2805662]

Good thread from ATDU on the WCSP cancellation. 
 

https://twitter.com/thepagey/status/1379927374263955464?s=21

[Lord_James]

1 hour ago, David Moyes said:

By all accounts the turret did work in the end and the battlefield trials for WCSP were going well.
However with all the delays and cost overruns it simply became untenable to continue.

I would say "politically risky" would refer to the optics of giving LMUK more money to continue a "failed" programme on another platform

Understandable, but isn’t cost overruns par-for-the-course for British army procurement? Also, I would point out that similar occurrences did happen in history (turret from one vehicle being used to upgrade another), namely the T23 turret on the Sherman, and (iirc) the T-34-85’s turret. Boxer’s modular (or so they say), might cost less to use the technology they literally just developed to upgrade her than go shopping around. 

[ZloyKrolik]

17 hours ago, Lord_James said:

Also, I would point out that similar occurrences did happen in history (turret from one vehicle being used to upgrade another), namely the T23 turret on the Sherman, and (iirc) the T-34-85’s turret.

Wartime upgrades on vehicles in service from internal prototypes. Not the case here.

[David Moyes]

@Lord_James

You're using logic. Army Brass do not.

When the cancelation was first announced people of course suggested a WCSP-Boxer. Various journalists quickly shut down such a thing.

Army will do everything to dissociate themselves from WCSP. Doesn't matter if nearly £500m has been wasted. It's happened before, it will happen again.
I could even see the Army completely dumping CT40.

[Lord_James]

Unfortunate, they looked like they were headed in a new direction with the Ajax, Boxer, and Challenger 3, but I guess all the new changes scared the old men in charge... 

 

Hehe

 

On a similar vein, is the Ajax turret able to be integrated to the boxer, or is it to heavy? 

[David Moyes]

Ajax turret would be too big and heavy for an IFV. 1.7m turret ring vs 1.4m for WCSP.

It's also Lance-based and LMUK and Rheinmetall fell out because of the original WCSP turret failure.

[David Moyes]

Ajax Brimstone Overwatch




https://generaldynamics.uk.com/gduk/overwatch/

 

Quote

General Dynamics Land Systems–UK today unveiled a further variant of its best-in-class AJAX Family of Vehicles (FoV). The Brimstone Anti-tank Guided Weapon ‘Overwatch’ variant, demonstrated in collaboration with MBDA, could operate in the vanguard of the British Army’s future Heavy Brigade and Deep Recce Strike Combat Teams, providing vital force protection for the more dispersed force and ensuring the integrity of long-range persistent surveillance.

The MBDA Brimstone-based solution Overwatch capability can be seamlessly integrated onboard an ARES vehicle utilising its state-of-the art Electronic Architecture, which is installed across the AJAX FoV and enables the rapid insertion and integration of new technologies and capabilities.

Carew Wilks, Vice President and General Manager of General Dynamics Land Systems–UK, said:

“The AJAX family can fulfil a large number of roles for Armed Forces worldwide, including reconnaissance, persistent surveillance, command and control, and bridging. Our collaboration with MBDA further demonstrates the versatility of the AJAX fleet through the delivery of an ‘Overwatch’ capability quickly and effectively for the Heavy and Deep Recce Strike Brigade Combat Teams.”

Chris Allam, MBDA UK Managing Director, said:

“Brimstone and AJAX is a potent battle-winning combination. Brimstone is a core part of the ‘portfolio’ approach to complex weapons between MBDA and the UK Ministry of Defence. This co-operation on AJAX Overwatch demonstrates how we can use sovereign UK complex weapons technologies to provide rapid and low cost solutions to enhance the operational capabilities of the UK Armed Forces, while ensuring sovereign skills, jobs and security of supply are maintained.”

Brimstone is the ubiquitous multiple-platform weapon for Air, Land and Maritime environments. Operationally proven and packed with the latest technology for further growth, in the Overwatch role Brimstone is the differentiator for high intensity, peer-on-peer warfighting, with excellent reach, high-loadout and salvo capability. Defeating all known Defensive Aide Suites and armour with high precision and in all weathers, Brimstone gives several targeting options while uniquely enhancing platform and operator survivability through best-in-class insensitive munition compliance.

https://mk0generaldynam7ma37.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ARES-OVERWATCH-NEW-V5-1.mp4



2x4 brimstone launchers
Can fire at multiple targets near simultaneously
Fires static or moving

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

 

[BaronTibere]

Striker 2

[BaronTibere]

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/british-army-to-possess-most-lethal-tank-in-europe

[Ramlaen]

On par lethality, depending on the ammunition the UK procures. But a big congrats either way.

[BaronTibere]

From the British army twitter account:
 

Spoiler

 

[Korvette]

hm yes.... "mk 3"

[Lord_James]

21 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

On par lethality, depending on the ammunition the UK procures. But a big congrats either way.

If it is the L55A1 they’re mounting, they could use higher pressure ammo than most of their allies. 

[Atokara]

On 5/8/2021 at 8:32 AM, Lord_James said:

If it is the L55A1 they’re mounting, they could use higher pressure ammo than most of their allies. 

The problem is they have no high pressure ammo to fire out of it. DM73 isn't in production yet, good luck getting Japan to part with any Type 10, and its unknown if the US would sell non-export M829A3/A4 with it being DU. Either way their best bet would to just be waiting until DM73 as I don't predict the UK getting in any major land wars in the next few years.

[N-L-M]

18 minutes ago, Atokara said:

and its unknown if the US would sell non-export M829A3/A4 with it being DU

There have been rumors of exactly this happening. The UK is a somewhat special case when it comes to exporting US nuclear materials, lets not forget that they share nuclear missiles with the US, and have in the past shared nuclear reactors and even warheads.

DU tank ammunition pales in comparison.

[TokyoMorose]

It should be noted, the US *has* exported DU rounds in the past - even some 829A3s were exported.

 

The lack of DU exports and the existence of the KE-W line seems to be reluctance from the importing nation, not a fundamental refusal to sell DU rounds to close allies.

 

[David Moyes]

Jon Hawkes reports that the choice is M829A4 or KE2020Neo. Modifications explored to accommodate former:
 

Two armour suites. ERA and (inert) NERA. Trophy MV APS:
 

Engine upgrade focussed on obsolescent. 1500nhp may come later:
 

 

[Lord_James]

Weird that they’re considering a DU round for their new gun. IIRC, uranium (alloys) work better at 1500-1600 mps, and the M829A4 is designed to get those velocities out of an L44 barrel, not an L55.